Sharpening Clippers

[Joe Riel]

Not woodworking, per se, but steel is steel and sharp is sharp.

My Wahl electric hair clippers were dull. I tried sharpening them with
waterstones; that didn't work, they then cut horribly (sound and fury,
very little cutting). I tried again, this time remembering to first
flatten the stones. The result was probably worse. After using the
finish stone, the center of the blades were noticeably shinier than the
edges, indicating the surfaces were now ground convex. Presumably this
was a result of the first sharpening, with a stone that was concave.

I tried once more, this time starting with a flattening iron and grit.
Progressed through the grits, then again used the water stones, paying
more attention to first getting them flat. After the finish stone, the
surfaces were nearly uniformly shiny, but one corner was sligtly dull.
This time the blades cut better; not ideal, but enough to do the job
(fortunately cutting my hair isn't much of a job).

I measured the diameter of a strand of hair, it is approximately 1.5
mil. That suggests the desired flatness for each surface should be
about 0.5 mil or better. A problem with using stones, etc, is that
there is no real indication of flatness until the final step, that is, I
can only observe a difference after there is a near mirror finish.

A few questions. Would I do better with sandpaper on a glass surface?
Is there a reasonable way to determine whether the initial grinding (at
the coarsest grit) yields a flat surface (on average)? What's the best
way to flatten a water stone? I generally just abrade it against a
reasonably flat section of concrete, check with a straight edge, and
finish by rubbing two stones against each other. That works fine for
chisel and plane blades.

--
Joe Riel

[woodchucker]

That depends on the coarseness of the stone.
For coarse stones the conctete is fine.

I would use glass, or granite and sandpaper.



--
Jeff

[G. Ross]

Joe Riel wrote: > Not woodworking, per se, but steel is steel and sharp is sharp. > My Wahl electric hair clippers were dull. I tried sharpening them with > waterstones; that didn't work, they then cut horribly (sound and fury, > very little cutting). I tried again, this time remembering to first > flatten the stones. The result was probably worse. After using the > finish stone, the center of the blades were noticeably shinier than the > edges, indicating the surfaces were now ground convex. Presumably this > was a result of the first sharpening, with a stone that was concave. > I tried once more, this time starting with a flattening iron and grit. > Progressed through the grits, then again used the water stones, paying > more attention to first getting them flat. After the finish stone, the > surfaces were nearly uniformly shiny, but one corner was sligtly dull. > This time the blades cut better; not ideal, but enough to do the job > (fortunately cutting my hair isn't much of a job). > I measured the diameter of a strand of hair, it is approximately 1.5 > mil. That suggests the desired flatness for each surface should be > about 0.5 mil or better. A problem with using stones, etc, is that > there is no real indication of flatness until the final step, that is, I > can only observe a difference after there is a near mirror finish. > A few questions. Would I do better with sandpaper on a glass surface? > Is there a reasonable way to determine whether the initial grinding (at > the coarsest grit) yields a flat surface (on average)? What's the best > way to flatten a water stone? I generally just abrade it against a > reasonably flat section of concrete, check with a straight edge, and > finish by rubbing two stones against each other. That works fine for > chisel and plane blades. My dad used to sharpen his on a flat india stone. He sharpened his straight razor on the same stone. I would say "ask a barber", but I'm sure they all send them out to be sharpened. So ask Wahl. GW Ross A little inaccuracy saves tons of explanation.

[Martin Eastburn]

I'd get an Arkansas stone myself. Very fine and can be very flat.
Grinding something like that maybe beyond most people in metal working.

Martin

[Nick]

"Joe Riel" <jo...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:87d2q6d...@san.rr.com...

> Not woodworking, per se, but steel is steel and sharp is sharp.

<snip>

> I measured the diameter of a strand of hair, it is approximately 1.5
> mil.

1.5mm? That's kinda scary. You might be better of with a petrol hedge
trimmer or an angle grinder ;))

Nick.

[Leon]

mil, not mm, there are 59 mil in 1.5mm

[Joe Riel]

mil = inch/1000 = 0.0254 mm



--
Joe Riel

[Nick]

"Joe Riel" <jo...@san.rr.com> wrote in message

news:87y58o9...@san.rr.com...

Mea culpa. Read it wrong.

[Joe Riel]

"Nick" <nick...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> writes:

> "Joe Riel" <jo...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:87y58o9...@san.rr.com...
>> "Nick" <nick...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> "Joe Riel" <jo...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:87d2q6d...@san.rr.com...
>>>> Not woodworking, per se, but steel is steel and sharp is sharp.
>>> <snip>
>>>> I measured the diameter of a strand of hair, it is approximately 1.5
>>>> mil.
>>>
>>> 1.5mm? That's kinda scary. You might be better of with a petrol hedge
>>> trimmer or an angle grinder ;))
>>
>> mil = inch/1000 = 0.0254 mm
>>
>>
> Mea culpa. Read it wrong.

No problemo. That (imagining really thick hair) made me reconsider my
"estimation" of the necessary flatness. Because the hair is orthogonal
to the cutting edges, it seems like the required minimum gap (flatness)
is independent of hair thickness. So what dictates the required
gap/flatness for a scissors action to be effective?

--
Joe Riel

[Mike Marlow]

Nope - we don't culpa anyone here. You screw up, and beers are on you!

--

-Mike-
mmarlo...@windstream.net

It ain't the price of the beer that will get ya, it's the shipping...

[G. Ross]

Joe Riel wrote: > "Nick"<nick...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> writes: >> "Joe Riel"<jo...@san.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:87y58o9...@san.rr.com... >>> "Nick"<nick...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> writes: >>>> "Joe Riel"<jo...@san.rr.com> wrote in message >>>> news:87d2q6d...@san.rr.com... >>>>> Not woodworking, per se, but steel is steel and sharp is sharp. >>>> <snip> >>>>> I measured the diameter of a strand of hair, it is approximately 1.5 >>>>> mil. >>>> >>>> 1.5mm? That's kinda scary. You might be better of with a petrol hedge >>>> trimmer or an angle grinder ;)) >>> mil = inch/1000 = 0.0254 mm >> Mea culpa. Read it wrong. > No problemo. That (imagining really thick hair) made me reconsider my > "estimation" of the necessary flatness. Because the hair is orthogonal > to the cutting edges, it seems like the required minimum gap (flatness) > is independent of hair thickness. So what dictates the required > gap/flatness for a scissors action to be effective? Clippers do not use a scissor action as such. Scissors have a flexible curved surface so that only at the point of crossing are the edges touching with pressure. Clippers are not flexible so have to be touching tightly together everywhere. Talking very flat. The sharpening stone has to be very flat so that it wears away the metal everywhere at the same rate. Thus my father's India stone--flat as glass but slow cutting. A new hard Arkansas stone would probably cut faster and still stay flat. GW Ross If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

[G. Ross]

G. Ross wrote: > Joe Riel wrote: >> "Nick"<nick...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> writes: >>> "Joe Riel"<jo...@san.rr.com> wrote in message >>> news:87y58o9...@san.rr.com... >>>> "Nick"<nick...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> writes: >>>> >>>>> "Joe Riel"<jo...@san.rr.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:87d2q6d...@san.rr.com... >>>>>> Not woodworking, per se, but steel is steel and sharp is sharp. >>>>> <snip> >>>>>> I measured the diameter of a strand of hair, it is approximately 1.5 >>>>>> mil. >>>>> >>>>> 1.5mm? That's kinda scary. You might be better of with a petrol hedge >>>>> trimmer or an angle grinder ;)) >>>> >>>> mil = inch/1000 = 0.0254 mm >>>> >>>> >>> Mea culpa. Read it wrong. >> No problemo. That (imagining really thick hair) made me reconsider my >> "estimation" of the necessary flatness. Because the hair is orthogonal >> to the cutting edges, it seems like the required minimum gap (flatness) >> is independent of hair thickness. So what dictates the required >> gap/flatness for a scissors action to be effective? > Clippers do not use a scissor action as such. Scissors have a > flexible curved surface so that only at the point of crossing are the > edges touching with pressure. Clippers are not flexible so have to be > touching tightly together everywhere. Talking very flat. The > sharpening stone has to be very flat so that it wears away the metal > everywhere at the same rate. Thus my father's India stone--flat as > glass but slow cutting. A new hard Arkansas stone would probably cut > faster and still stay flat. Another way would be to take the blades and clean them well, Add a little honing compound, put them back together and run the clippers until they will cut well. Then take them apart and clean the honing material off and add a little light oil. You used to be able to buy a small tube of this stuff to use on electric shavers to sharpen them. GW Ross If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

[tdacon]

"Joe Riel" wrote in message news:87d2q6d...@san.rr.com...

OK, I've been watching here for a few days and no one's mentioned the real
issue. So here it is:

For cutting hair with a pair of shears, the sharper they get (in the
woodworking tool sense), the worse they cut. The hairs just roll away as the
contact point of the shears advances.

To make them cut well, the bevel faces of the shears need to be rough, in
just the right way and just the right amount, so that they hold the hairs in
place while they're being severed. I'm guessing that the mating surfaces
could be as flat as you like, right down to micro-inches but, as I think I
recall, it's the bevel face that needs the treatment.

In days long gone, the folks who sharpened them finished them with a file of
some sort, that I think used to be called a "veining file" or something like
that. I've googled for that term and haven't found it, so I'm pretty sure
that I have the term wrong, but long ago when I knew what it was called I'm
pretty sure that it had been someone on the wreck who had been talking about
it in a post.

So give up on the nano-sharpening (after you get the edges meeting perfectly
all along the edge, and the facing surfaces as flat as you like), and try
maybe a 6" second-cut mill file on the bevel face and see how it goes.

Good luck, and post your experiences here.

Tom

[Lew Hodgett]

"Joe Riel" wrote:

>
> Not woodworking, per se, but steel is steel and sharp is sharp.
>
> My Wahl electric hair clippers were dull. I tried sharpening them
> with
> waterstones; that didn't work, they then cut horribly (sound and
> fury,
> very little cutting).

<snip>
--------------------------------------------
Lapping compound.

Apply it and let the motor do the work.

Clean and oil.

You are good to go.


Lew

[Nick]

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlo...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:kt9i9e$jpf$1...@dont-email.me...

> Nick wrote:
>> "Joe Riel" <jo...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:87y58o9...@san.rr.com...
>>> "Nick" <nick...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> "Joe Riel" <jo...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:87d2q6d...@san.rr.com...
>>>>> Not woodworking, per se, but steel is steel and sharp is sharp.
>>>>> <snip> I measured the diameter of a strand of hair, it is
>>>>> approximately 1.5 mil.
>>>>
>>>> 1.5mm? That's kinda scary. You might be better of with a petrol
>>>> hedge trimmer or an angle grinder ;))
>>>
>>> mil = inch/1000 = 0.0254 mm
>>>
>>>
>> Mea culpa. Read it wrong.
>
> Nope - we don't culpa anyone here. You screw up, and beers are on you!
>

No worries. Visit me any time you like and I'll be more than glad to buy you
a pint. BTW, that would be an imperial pint, not US:)
Which gets me to thinking that I shouldn't think. However, over in the more
civilised part of the world a mil is a shortened version of millimetre thus
1.5mil = pretty much barbed wire. To me inch/1000 = thou (or thousandth of
an inch). Just call me old fashioned.
How has mil become a ft/ins term?
Oh well, we live and learn.
Good luck,
Nick.